Trump Wants to Destroy All Academia, Not Just the Woke Parts
In 2021, JD Vance gave a speech to the National Conservatism Conference, a gathering of Trumpist thinkers and politicians, titled 'The Universities Are the Enemy.' It contained the usual complaints about critical race theory and gender ideology, but it went much further, arguing for a frontal attack on the power and prestige of higher education writ large. Comparing universities to the sci-fi totalitarianism of 'The Matrix,' in which parasitic machines have seized control of reality itself, he said, 'So much of what drives truth and knowledge as we understand it in this country is fundamentally determined by, supported by and reinforced by the universities.' Why, he asked, have conservatives consented to such intellectual tyranny?
Vance, then a Senate candidate, described being at a donor event and talking to a supporter about the absurdity of encouraging kids to take on debt to go to colleges that will brainwash them. The supporter asked, 'What's the alternative? I don't want my kid to become an HVAC specialist,' installing and repairing heating and air-conditioning systems. With that attitude, said Vance, 'we're going to continue to empower the colleges and the universities that make it impossible for conservative ideas to ultimately carry the day.'
Put aside, for a moment, the hypocrisy of this message coming from a man catapulted into the highest strata of American society by Yale Law School. The striking thing about Vance's speech was its deep hostility to the entire academic enterprise, not just the so-called woke parts. He wasn't talking about making more room for right-wing ideas in universities or even dreaming of taking them over. He wanted to destroy it all.
And now he's part of a government taking steps to do just that. I've written about Donald Trump's plan to crush the academic left, but it increasingly looks as though he and his allies are targeting academia more broadly, including the hard sciences that have long enjoyed bipartisan support. 'I think the extremely strong desire is to just punish universities however possible,' Kevin Carey, the director of the education policy program at New America, a public policy think tank, told me. 'It's not based on any kind of coherent policy agenda. It's just a desire to inflict pain.'
This is the context for the Trump administration's attempt, currently being challenged in court, to slash research funding from the National Institutes of Health. The details sound technical and very boring: The new policy would limit reimbursements for schools' overhead expenses to 15 percent of grants' value, instead of the 50 to 70 percent that universities often receive now. But if this goes into effect, the damage will be tremendous. As H. Holden Thorp, the editor of Science, wrote, for every dollar spent on academic research, roughly another dollar is needed for lab equipment, support staff and systems for managing grants. Right now, the government funds a big chunk of these indirect costs, with universities picking up the remainder. If the government reduces its contribution to 15 percent, universities could try to close the gap by raising tuition and eliminating departments, but it wouldn't be enough. Crucial research projects, including those investigating cures for devastating diseases, would have to be scaled back or jettisoned altogether.
These cuts could hit some Trump-voting states particularly hard. In Alabama, North Carolina and others, universities are among the biggest employers, which is why some Republican senators are at least gingerly objecting to the new reimbursement rules. But that's only one reason the administration's full-spectrum war on academia defies rational self-interest. The post-World War II system of government-funded research universities has fueled American scientific and technological dominance, but our continued pre-eminence is in no way assured.
China, after all, continues to invest strongly in its universities. 'Part of our decline as a culture and economy would be our disinvestment in higher education,' said Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University. 'Maybe we'll just invest in World Wrestling, but I don't think that's going to mean that other countries and other cultures won't continue to invest in the capacity of their citizens to learn in such a way as to create new modes of living, new modes of fighting disease, new modes of creating companies.' To torch America's advantage in these realms seems like madness.
But there's a lot of madness in the air these days. In December, Max Eden of the American Enterprise Institute published an article about how Linda McMahon, the former World Wrestling Entertainment chief executive whom Trump nominated to be secretary of education, could give the 'college cartel' the 'body slamming they deserve.' One of the first items on Eden's list was capping the reimbursement of indirect research costs at 15 percent, exactly as the Trump team is trying to do. From there, Eden proposed that McMahon 'should simply destroy Columbia University' — home, among other things, to one of the best medical schools in America — as a warning to other schools about the price of tolerating anti-Israel protest.
Ultimately, however much some in the Trump administration want to gut American universities, Carey doesn't think they'll fully succeed. These are deeply rooted institutions, some older than the Republic itself, many with powerful constituencies. After four years of Trump, he said, 'they'll still be there, but they certainly could be weakened. The quality of their work could certainly be diminished in ways that will take time to recover from.' Their weakness could be an opportunity for others. Eden suggested that Trump take steps to make it easier to start schools like the anti-woke University of Austin, 'and even newer ones that no one has dreamed up yet. Musk University?' But why stop there? Trump University could be due for a comeback.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
30 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Says Musk Wants to Talk After Explosive Public Feud
President Donald Trump said Elon Musk is "the man who has lost his mind," brushing off their high-profile fallout despite headlines suggesting the two may soon speak, per ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl . "Not particularly," Trump said about whether he was interested in a call, claiming Musk was keen to speak. 08:28 AM EDT Russia offers political asylum to Elon Musk over Trump feud Elon Musk looks on during a news conference with US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2025. Elon Musk looks on during a news conference with US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2025. ALLISON ROBBERT/AFP via Getty Images A Russian official said the American billionaire Elon Musk could be offered political asylum in Russia over his fierce dispute with U.S. President Donald Trump. Dmitry Novikov, first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs, commented to Russian state news outlet TASS. "I think that Musk has a completely different game, [so] he will not need any political asylum, although if he did, Russia, of course, could provide it," Novikov said, in remarks translated from Russian. Musk and Trump, ostensibly political allies over cuts to federal spending, publicly clashed on June 5 in a series of social media exchanges and comments to reporters. The dispute's origin is the impact of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill on U.S. public debt. Read the full story by Jordan King and Shane Croucher on Newsweek.
New York Times
30 minutes ago
- New York Times
Hawley Breaks With Republicans to Oppose a Major Crypto Bill
While the clash between Elon Musk and President Trump captivated Washington on Thursday, another drama was playing out behind closed doors over a bill to regulate the $250 billion market for stablecoins, which could transform America's relationship with the dollar, upend the credit card industry, and benefit both Musk and Trump. The bill, the GENIUS Act, is poised to pass the Senate within days. But a prominent Republican, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, said that he will vote against the bill in its current form, warning that it would hand too much control of America's financial system to tech giants. 'It's a huge giveaway to Big Tech,' Hawley said in an interview. Mr. Hawley, who previously voted against the bill for procedural purposes, is concerned that the legislation would allow tech giants to create digital currencies that compete with the dollar. And he fears that such companies would then be motivated to collect even more data on users' finances. 'It allows these tech companies to issue stablecoins without any kind of controls,' he said. 'I don't see why we would do that.' Similar worries scuttled an effort by Meta to get into stablecoins. In 2019, Jay Powell of the Fed, among others, raised 'serious concerns' about Meta's cryptocurrency initiative, called Libra and then Diem. It abandoned the project in 2022. The GENIUS Act has exposed divisions in both parties. Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts oppose the bill, warning it would make it easier for Trump, whose family announced its own USD1 stablecoin in March, to engage in corrupt practices. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Canada needs a law that gives workers the right to govern their workplace
A major fault line in contemporary society is that while our political lives are governed by democratic principles, our economic lives largely are not. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, Maple Leaf Foods experienced an outbreak in its Brandon, Man. factory. Not only were workers ordered to keep working in unsafe conditions, they were forced to work overtime. Walmart has long been accused of forbidding its cashiers from sitting down, even during long shifts. At one of its warehouses in Pennsylvania, Amazon allowed the temperature to reach an unbearable 102 F in 2011. When employees pleaded to open the loading doors to let in fresh air, management refused, claiming this would lead to employee theft. Instead, Amazon parked ambulances outside and waited for employees to collapse from heat stroke. Employees who were sent home because of the heat were given demerits for missing work, and fired if they accumulated too many. These examples reflect the fact that, in most workplaces, employees have no say in who manages them or how major decisions are made. Entering the workplace typically means leaving the freedoms of democratic society behind and entering a private domain unilaterally controlled by an employer. For most workers who are not in senior management, the main job of every job is to follow orders. Functionally speaking, workers are servants. In its governance structure, the modern workplace operates as a kind of mini dictatorship. Although workplace discipline isn't enforced with physical violence, supervisors still have the power to discipline or punish those who dissent. But what if there were an actual legal right to workplace democracy? My research scrutinized the pros and cons of such novel legislation by drawing on decades of research comparing conventional, top-down firms with democratic worker co-operatives (where workers collectively own the firm and elect the governing board). In large American firms, the average CEO-to-worker pay ratio is now a jaw-dropping 351 to one. As CEO, Jeff Bezos made roughly 360,000 times more than Amazon's minimum wage workers. This inequality ripples across society with significant consequences. By contrast, most worker co-ops maintain a pay ratio of three to one and only very rarely exceed 10 to one. There's also a stark difference in how workers are treated. While conventional firms lay off workers whenever it's profitable to do so, co-ops do everything in their power to save jobs. Top-down decision-making also breeds degradation and disrespect. A 2016 Oxfam report, for instance, documented how some Tyson Foods employees were prevented from using the bathroom to the point where some urinated themselves and other felt compelled to wear diapers to work. A Gallup survey from 2021 found that across the American economy as a whole, only 20 per cent of workers strongly agreed with the statement that 'my opinions seem to count.' In co-ops, workers are generally treated with more respect and dignity. They typically participate more in decision-making, have higher job satisfaction and have less antagonism with management. In conventional workplaces, many employees hate or fear their boss. Roughly 17 per cent of the workforce opt for self-employment in order to get away from the tyranny of the boss, even though self-employed workers typically earn about 15 per cent less than their salaried counterparts and receive less than half the benefits. Worker co-operatives are typically less dominating than conventional firms because workers elect their managers and can create self-managing teams where workers have more autonomy over matters like scheduling and how tasks are carried out. Though co-ops are far from perfect, with workers often feeling that they aren't able to participate in decision-making as much as they would like. Most workers have no viable alternative to undemocratic work, and so no choice but to suffer its harms. While in theory, workers can quit and rely on welfare or social assistance, in practice, this isn't viable because welfare rates are often too low to live on. Starting a business or becoming self-employed is another theoretical option, but it's too financially risky to be a serious alternative for most. Joining a worker co-operative is the most promising alternative, but there were less than 400 worker co-ops in Canada in 2022, representing less than one per cent of employment. Converting an existing workplace into a co-op faces serious barriers too. Even if the workers desperately want a conversion, if the employer doesn't, they're out of luck; their employer owns the organization and can simply say no. Canada needs a new law to expand democracy by granting workers the legal right to collectively buy into the firms they work for. The process would resemble how unionization works today. It would start after a majority of employees sign a declaration stating their intent to form a worker co-operative. After this threshold is reached, a formal process would be triggered: employers would be required to disclose all relevant financial documents with the workers, and workers would receive education on the managerial, technical and legal requirements of co-ops. Co-op development bankers would provide loans and financing options. Once this is done, workers would hold a final vote. If a simple majority (50 per cent plus one) votes in favour, the employer would be paid the fair market value for the firm and the business would be restructured as a worker co-operative. Importantly, the law would allow this transition even if the employer is opposed, just as collective bargaining legislation allows workers to unionize without employer approval. It would also ensure owners are fairly compensated; owners shouldn't lose their property, but they should lose the right to unilaterally govern other human beings in perpetuity, especially when those others are willing and ready to govern themselves. Of course, this law might bring some economic disruption. It's possible that certain owners might oppose democratic ownership so strongly that they would rather shut down the business altogether than work as equals, but such cases would likely be rare. On the other hand, research shows that worker co-ops are just as productive as conventional firms (if not more so) and they have similar survival rates. This is highly reassuring for the overall well-being of the economy. Moreover, workers would need to invest significant amounts of their own money in order to buy out the firm, so conversions will occur only after serious consideration. The bottom line is that while the costs of this legislation would likely be modest, the benefits to workers and society at large would be substantial: reduced inequality and domination, increased job security and respect. Canada should establish a right to buy-in as soon as possible. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Tom Malleson, Western University Read more: Canada's small businesses could be saved by converting them to co-operatives The key to a vibrant democracy may well lie in your workplace New budget offers Canada a chance to get employee ownership right Tom Malleson has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
